Specific performance requires certainty of terms and consensus ad idem; unclear property, obligation, and price terms defeat relief.

Specific performance requires a binding contract with clear, certain terms and consensus ad idem. If the document leaves uncertainty about the subject matter, the parties' obligations, or the promisor's alternative rights, a court cannot create a contract for them. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence and terms of the agreement. On the stated facts, material ambiguities remained about the property to be sold, the effect of non-joining by a co-sharer, and the price or share to be conveyed, and the surrounding correspondence did not cure that uncertainty. No valid and enforceable contract existed for specific performance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the document relied upon by the plaintiff disclosed a valid and enforceable contract with certainty of terms and consensus ad idem so as to justify a decree for specific performance.

Analysis: Specific performance can be granted only when a binding contract exists and its terms are clear, certain, and mutually accepted. Where the language of the document leaves uncertainty as to the subject matter, the parties' obligations, or the alternative rights of the promisor, the court cannot spell out a contract for the parties. The burden of proving the existence and terms of such a contract lies on the plaintiff. On the facts, the document relied upon contained material ambiguities as to the property agreed to be sold, the nature of the obligation if the co-sharer did not join, and the price or share to be conveyed, and the surrounding correspondence did not remove that uncertainty.

Conclusion: There was no valid and enforceable contract capable of specific performance, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree sought.

---